And we continue at what five in the afternoon on the John Phillips Show, Mister Randy weggs across the glass Well, John, it doesn't get more California than this. A project to build a bike lane on the Bay Bridge is ten years late, only half complete, and needs seven hundred million dollars to finish. Boy, that's right up there with a bullet train, isn't it. This is for a bike lane. It's a lot of money to make people on Schwins happy. Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
telephone number one. Eight hundred two two two five two two two. It is our pleasure to welcome our next guest to the program. Joel Gilbert is an American filmmaker who is also one of the first people in the media to be on Eric Swalwell. He was the one who filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court trying to disqualify Swallwell from running for California governor, striking him from
the ballot, saying that Swalwell doesn't actually live in California. Well, when people started doing the digging in the mainstream media, they pretty much confirmed that Swalwell lives in Maryland and not in California, as he, of course spends a lot of money on hotel rooms in and around his district, something you wouldn't have to do if you actually lived here. Whether the courts are ultimately willing to do something about it, I guess we'll never know, because Eric Swalwell has suspended
his campaign due too well, unfortunate circumstances. Let's just call it that. Joining us right now is the man who filed that lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court. You can follow him on exit. Joel S Gilbert, Joel Gilbert, welcome.
Okay, good to be here, Thank you. Filed the lawsuit a couple of months ago. It actually ran into Swalwell at his town hall in Santa Monica back in January, and he came around and shook every buddy's hand before it started. They were only about fifty people, and I think he recognized me because instead of doing a two hour quan thirty minutes, so I think he didn't be asking him, hey, can I get your address in California please, because you know he didn't have one. I did other
research on Swawah. One thing led to another. I found that he had an illegal alien Brazilian nanny working for him for several years that he first paid her from the campaign, which you're not allowed to do because the campaign can only pay for childcare if it's specific event related. I went to Pittsburgh and I did an event Thursday night. I had to hire a babysitter. He was charging full time, all year round childcare and paying this so pair from Brazil.
Her visa ran out, He took her off the books for two years, paid her illegally, and then put her back on the book. So I'd made two complaints a DHS Department Homeland Security complaint against Swawall and his wife illegally employing an illegal alien, second complaint with the Federal Election Commission because you're not allowed to charge full time
childcare to your donors. Amazingly, Swawell, despite these complaints that he knew about because he was retweeting me and calling me names on Twitter, even when he ran for governor, he paid his wife from his campaign donors to look after their own kids. So Swollwell was completely corrupt. Everything he did was corrupt. He took advantage of his campaign donors, and it all caught up to him with these sexual assault allegations, and he had to drop out.
If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong. He is also one of these people who used his campaign account to do things like stay in fancy hotels, fly first class, go to sporting events, go to concerts, essentially live a life of luxury that he otherwise would not be able to afford on a mere congressman salary.
You're correct. He even charged one hundred orders of staggering one hundred orders to Drizzly, which is a wine and beer company delivering booze. So he absolutely abused his donors. Imagine you're working a job and you give Swallow one hundred bucks only to find out he used it for fancy hotels, booze, and to pay his wife. He really insulted his donors. And it's all pretty amazing because you know,
I studied Swalwell. When he ran for congress in twenty twelve, he had one hundred thousand dollars in student loan debt and he also owed one hundred thousand in credit cards. Flash forward twenty twenty four, his campaign disclosures showed he hadn't paid either one of them off. He's making one hundred and seventy four thousand a years a congressman. He charges everything to his campaign donors. So there's still some mystery out there. Where did this guy's money go? Where
did it go? Is he paying people off? Is he paying lawyers? Is he paying settlements? Is still one more thing we're going to learn about Swalwell. We're going to find out what he's done with his money all these years, because it's just.
Not clear well.
And I would imagine, and I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that there's an element of fraud that
exists if that's how you're spending the money. Because if you're a little old lady getting ginned up late at night watching Rachel Maddow and you see him on there and you think, Okay, this guy's going to get reelected and he can torment Trump for two more years, and you write up a check for one hundred bucks, I would imagine that little old lady thinks that money's going for bumper stickers and maybe for campaign T shirts, and maybe for radio ads or television ads to get him reelected.
The money is not going to make it so that he can live like Elieme Clampet.
No, he absolutely abused his campaign donors for Congress, his gubernatorial donors were abused, high end hotels, booze paying his wife to watch their kids. You can't do that. So he's had a lot of arrogance and disdain, and it finally caught up to him with these allegations of sexual assault. I thought he was a bad dude. I met him in person, I shook his hand, I looked him in the eye. It was very uncomfortable around him. He had an attitude that he just wants to be this kind
of anti Trump thug. That's all he wanted to do in life. And people let him do that for a couple of years, but it all came crashing down as we saw now.
As a documentarian, when you put together a documentary, when you're doing research, when you have a project that you're working on, I would imagine that, as many people in that industry do. You have standards and practices where you hear many things, but unless you believe that you can prove it, not just to yourself but to a judge.
If you were to be sued for defamation or libel or whatever, you have to have all of your claims bulletproof before you're willing to run with them in any kind of public forum, let alone put it into a documentary.
That being said, when you're researching this subject and you're doing a deep dive, as you did on Eric Swalwell, I'm sure you hear a million different things when you were doing your research in your due diligence on the issues related to his residency and the issues related to how he was spending his campaign account, how the money in his campaign account, whether that was legal or not.
Did you ever hear any rumors from anyone about any kind of inappropriate sexual relationships with staffers, with interns, or any allegations of sexual assault or rape. Did that ever cross you?
It never came up because I was relying on public documents which revealed a tremendous amount it. Swallow is required to make FEC filings every quarter, where it shows where all his money is going, and that tells you a great deal. Now, regarding his lack of any residence in California, I did a search in Alameda County property records. He never owned a home in California. He never rented anywhere either.
Three days before my court trial, some woman that used to work for his campaign, who lived in a thirteen hundred square foot house with her husband, dog, and kid. She gave a declaration to the court saying she rented her house to Swallwell five years ago, but she provided no lease, no documentation. I looked up the homestead exemption for Alameda County. Turns out she's taking a seven thousand dollars homestead exemption every year, which requires you to live
in the house. New York Post sent a reporter after her house, and there's the German shepherd. She's there with her kid. The neighbors said they'd never seen Swallwell. Tom Steyers campaign looked it up. I didn't even think to do it. Tom Stiers campaign looked up his expenses and found that every time he visited Alameda County, his home district, he stayed in the Rose Hotel. So that woman gave
a false declaration to the court. I made a tax fraud complaint against her with Alameda County because she took a homestead exemption which requires her to live there. But she's claiming that she doesn't live that Swalwell does. So a lot of people are getting in trouble because of Swalwell. This girl named Kastrina Mazurka has a tax rout complaint.
His wife I made a complaint against her for falsifying a visa application for their illegal alien Brazilian nanny, and of course the illegal alien Brazilian nanny was overstaying her visa. So a lot of people are getting in trouble for cooperating with Swalwell's schemes, and they're going to be in big trouble with him as well.
Okay, So let's assume that the courts pursue this, and let's assume that charges are filed regarding sexual assault, and we know that there are district attorneys in Alameda County, Los Angeles County, and New York City that are looking
into some of these allegations. I would imagine that if they're looking for some of these people who may or may not know information related to the sexual assault allegations, they could use this tax these tax complaints to squeeze them to get them to sing on the other subjects.
Look, there's so much material everywhere you look at Swolwell. He's done something inappropriate or outright illegal in my opinion from looking at his document it's all public documents, So he has at least seven investigations going on between the fec DHS criminal complaints. This guy, you just can imagine there. I was in the same room with him in January. He's looking me in the eye and he's kind of
takes a half a step back. I don't think he knew who he was dealing with, because I was not going to give up till I exposed this guy.
Do you get the impression that he thought, because he had a safe seat in Congress and he was a star on the impeachment circuit and he was a regular on cable news, that he thought that he was bulletproof and he could do whatever he wanted.
Yeah, it's a phenomenon we've seen both in New York State and California, where you have these politicians that grow up in a Democrat state where they're never questioned, media only applauds whatever they do. There's never any opposition when they run for office, so when they got into the national stage, they really still believe they can do whatever they want and they don't have to be questioned. Remember Kamala Harris when she appeared in the debate running for
president and Tulci Gabbert just took her apart. She couldn't handle it because she'd never been criticized. So it is a phenomenon we see with these Democrats coming out of blue states and blue districts, where they just don't understand that they have to follow the law on the rules because they'd never been asked to before.
Were you surprised that so many of his allies, both within the Democratic Party and the mainstream media abandoned him as quickly as they did as soon as the allegation started coming out.
Look, I wasn't surprised because I had already softened him up for a couple of months. He had to say, oh, well, okay, I don't live in that woman's house, but I rent a room. I showed that he clearly was employing an illegal alien, So he had no credibility. By the time these sexual assault claims came out, he had no credibility. Even one of the first accusers said, the only reason I didn't come out when he started running for governors because I didn't think anyone would believe me. But I
had knocked down his credibility so much. I think the Democrats realized that they couldn't stick with him.
Were you surprised that more Democrats didn't abandon him after you revealed the information that you uncovered, because I looked at your stuff and you had him dead to rights. I mean, there was really not a question as to whether or not Eric Swalwell lived in Maryland or lived in California in his home district. You pretty much nailed him on that one. But his people didn't abandon him when you came out with that information. Yeah, it was Tom Steyer that certainly did, who was a rival in
that race for governor. But the people that had endorsed to Eric Swalwell, they weren't pulling their endorsements from him. The donors weren't pulling their money from him. They were stalling him despite the fact that you had the goods on him.
Look, it's a good point. Look Swawa would attack me on Twitter. He'd call me an idiot, he'd call me names. He'd say it was a Maga conspiracy without even looking at the facts. So these are the way the Democrats work is they're used to the media supporting them, so they simply deny everything and they think, well, people will just move on. The media is not going to say anything,
just everyone's going to move on. So that's why I just kept at it, one thing after the other, FEC complaints, tax fraud complaints, Department of Labor complaint against his wife, ice complaint, till it just beat his credibility up so much that once the woman came forward, that was it. But it is a shame that they don't immediately look at the facts. And Swollwell tried to deflect by calling me names and denying everything, even though the facts were right there.
So the court rejected your challenge. You're appealing that decision in the court. Do you believe that if your court date happened after this story, the story of sexual assault, the allegations of sexual assault, after that story broke, do you think you would have gotten a different result.
I can update you what happened. Look all by myself without an attorney. I filed the lawsuit in Sacramento court three days before the court case. This woman said, oh no, I ran in my house to him. I gave the court the information showing that she lived there. They ignored it and they found in Swalwell's favor. I appealed to the third District Court the same day, the Third District Appeals Court of California two pm the same day, they denied it. Then I appealed to the California Supreme Court.
They accepted my case. This was on a Monday afternoon. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court ruled in Swalwell's favor. So it was completely papered over the fact that the California Constitution requires someone to live in the state of California for five full years before running for governor, and you have to have a legitimate residence, which she didn't have. Theifn on a Supreme court is a dei Supreme court. There's one white guy, one black guy, one Asian guy,
one female Hispanic, one female black, one female white. It's all a dei court. When you have a dei court, they'll vote in favor of the people that gave them the job they weren't qualified for. So that's why they've already voted in the Supreme Court. Now, I'm actually proud that I was able to take it to the Supreme Court all by myself and it did get denied, but I think it did expose Swalwell's argument that he was first They said oh, he was renting this house. Then
he said, oh no, no, no, I'm renting a room. A renting a room is not a legitimate residence. He's never been there, And I think it really took down Swalwell's standing as a legitimate commentator because he was just so full of bull by then he was on the way out.
Are there any other politicians currently running for office who's residency you're taking a look at.
I've been taking a look at a lot of them all the time because what's nice is mortgages are public, So anybody I encourage everyone else listening to start downloading mortgages of any politician who's a real low life and look whether or not they're obeying the mortgage laws. Some people I've looked at and they're violating the laws, like Swallwell. Even in Washington, d C. He told his lender that that would be his primary residence, and now he's telling
the state of California that he lives in California. You know, either he's committee mortgage fraud in DC or he's not qualified to run for governor. But definitely, looking at mortgages is a way to see if politicians are following the law in their personal life, and you'll be surprised to find out a lot of them don't follow the law.
Jiell Gilbert independent filmmaker. You can follow him on x at Joel S. Gilbert Jill Gilbert. Excellent work and thanks so much for stopping by.
Okay anytime?
Thank you eight.
Hundred two two two five two two two. He is a telephone number. What eight hundred two two two five two two two. If you'd like to email the show, you can do so at Johnny Don't Like show at gmail dot com. That's Johnny Don't Like Show at gmail dot com and Randy. Earlier in the show, we revealed some big news. We have re signed with the company that operates this radio station in southern California and our radio station in Northern California, Cumulus Media, for another three
plus years. So we are going to continue to do this from noon to three every single day on seven ninety KABC in Los Angeles on eight ten KSFO in the Bay Area, and we've got that one hour on the weekends on KMJ. Of course, we have the podcast, and let me just say it's very important that everybody subscribes to that podcast because it's going to be very important someday. That's as much as I will reveal right now. But we are so excited to be here. We have
a lot of plans for the future. But the most important thing you need to know is that this show is not going anywhere for at least three years. And coming up tomorrow, we're going on the road. We're leaving the studios and we're going to Claremont. We're going to be doing the show live from the city of Claremont because immediately after we sign off at three, Randy, you and I are going to the gubernatorial debate. So CBS News California is putting on a gubernatorial debate at Pomona
College tomorrow. I believe it airs at five point thirty at all statewide CBS stations. We were invited by Julie Watts to attend and to hang out, and maybe John has a little running with Katie Porter. Who knows, but we are very excited to be there. And because you have to check in at four o'clock and this show ends at three o'clock, it was going to be really, really, really really tough to get there from either the Coachella
Valley or Culver City. So we're going to be doing the show nearby on location, and then we will be attending the debate and we will have lots to talk about on Wednesday show. But we are super psyched about it. And in fact, Johnny, you think you're talking to Julie Watson just a couple minutes here.
That's right.
Julie Watts of CBS News will be moderating tomorrow's debate. Eight hundred two two two five two two two is a telephone number one eight hundred two two two five two two two. As we mentioned before, tomorrow night, in Claremont, Randy and I will be attending the gubernatorial debate. It's going to happen at Pomoda College, which is part of the Claremont Colleges. I went to Claremont Graduate University for my master's degree, and Pomona is on the same campus
as CGU. They're all there together. It's a beautiful campus. If you've never been there before, I highly recommend going out there and having a Sunday Brian Shu a dinner sometime because it's like an East Coast college town right in the middle of California. But Randy, you were profiled on CBS News with Julie Watts when you were able to get some money that the state of California owed to you, based off of a report that she did
explaining just exactly how to get that money. Thanks to Julie Watts's reporting, we found out about claimate dot ca dot gov, a website that the California Controller's Office tells you if you have money that they owe you, probably that was sent to an address you haven't lived to in ten years.
So we did the story.
I put in my name, I put in all my old addresses, and I found three hundred dollars and I got three hundred dollars.
I put it in the bank.
How great is that?
Now?
How long did it take before that money went to a wine club immediately?
All right?
Well, Julie was kind enough to invite us as her guest to tomorrow night's debate because she is one of the moderators at the debate, and she is kind enough to join us right now. Julie Watts is an investigative correspondent for CBS News California, specializing in state capital accountability and consumer investigations. You can follow her on Exit Julie Watts TV. Julie Watts, thanks so much for stopping by.
Thanks for having me, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here now.
I would imagine that for you today is like the day before the term paper is due in college, and you're going through all your notes and you're sitting in front of your laptop and you're writing the questions and you're trying to figure out just exactly what topics to bring up, what topics to leave out, who which candidates should you ask? What question to those sorts of things?
Do you a stramra on me?
Right now?
Is this play?
Literally? Literally?
What's happening right now? Although I will say I'm sitting in the Bridges Auditorium and they're doing a run through right now. They've got Pomona students on stage standing in for all of the candidates, and it is in front of I do have my laptop in my lap, and I was just retiming because we just had a last minute candidate we sent out last night that Katie Porter is joining us, So I'm retiming and reformatting all of my questions to fit in another candidate. So very much
is like that last minute term paper. But I have to tell you, sitting in this auditorium writing these questions is incredible. I can't wait for you guys, just see it tomorrow.
It's gorgeous.
Now, I would imagine there are people who think, Okay, it's a trick question. You're trying to find out how to cleverly write a trick question to get the candidate to look ill prepared. And I look at it and I think the exact opposite. I think, Okay, one of these people is going to be governor, so you almost want to distill it down to just the absolute basics because one of them is going to run the state.
So you want to know what they think about any number of subjects that the next governor of California is going to have to deal with. So you want to know, and is clear of term as possible, what they think about subject X, Y or Z. And that's got to be difficult to write the question in a way that gets that answer.
Out of them, you know, So I have I'm in a really unique situation right because I've sat down with most of these folks for upwards of two hours, most of them, some a few a little bit shorter. But I got to interview all of them. And I have sort of built a relationship with many of these candidates over the last eight months since I started this interview series, and so I kind of know what they're going to
say already. My job right now is how do I get them to still it down and present to I always like to say I'm speaking to Mabel and Modesto. I'm sure there is a Mabel in Medesto, but I like to write my questions and frankly, my stories for Mabel, right like I understand the inside baseball, They understand the inside baseball, but Mabel doesn't understand how that impacts her. Right, So I will say for my segment, I have a thirty minute segment in the middle of a debate, and
it's sort of the accountability segment. And I am really trying to say, listen, we're not going to debate to the next half hour who is going to be governor or who's to blame for California's problems. I want you to debate your solutions. And what's really interesting is, you know, I know what all of them think about all of these issues, and so I want to put them side by side. You know, you think we need to completely outsource all oil refining. You think we need to drill more.
So let's talk about.
Those two solutions and why you think your answer is correct.
And then we let you know the audience decide which one do I like better. So to the extent that I can do it, my goal is going to try to keep them on what is your solution to this problem? And by no means do I want to trick them? Is? It is not my job. I would not be doing my job if they can't answer the question right. I actually, I genuinely want them to share their thoughts and their answers to California's problems.
We went through a lot of your interviews with a lot of the candidates.
You interviewed all of them.
And you posted portions of the interviews based on subjects. So what do they think about transgender athletes? Sports, what do they think about crime? What do they think about the bullets? Whatever? The one that I thought that they did the worst on, and this is collectively speaking, here was the answer to California's insurance crisis, where you pressed them on the fact that so many homeowners in California cannot buy insurance. Many of them are on the fair plan.
Many of them who have lost their homes to wildfires in Pacific Palisades, Altadena, they're having a tough time getting paid on what was supposed to be paid to them based on the contracts that they had with those insurance companies. And it seemed like for many of the candidates that was the one subject that they really hadn't thought through.
You know.
I think there's probably a couple of them that had, you know, thought it through. But it actually, interestingly, I do think maybe Katie Porter had the best answer on that one, because my understanding is she has somebody who works in the insurance industry in her family, so I did think that was she was pretty well thought out
on that answer specifically. It's interesting, though, Jack gun John, Now you have me rethinking my questions because I do have insurance on one of my questions, but I'm only asking a handful of the candidates, and the way I'm framing it is, Listen, half of the folks up there say, you know, forget the insurance. They're price gouging us, We don't need them, and the other half is saying, no, we need to allow them to charge a fair rate
In order to keep them in the state. And really, you know, to your point, I think what people are dealing with right now is you've got half the folks who can't get insurance. Because keep in mind, insurance is a private you know, they're part of companies. They don't have to offer you their product, and so if they can't make money off that.
Product, or if there's too much of a risk, they're.
Not going to offer it. And so right now you have politicians having to balance looking like they're siding with the insurance industry. But if they fight them too hard, you lose the insurance industry, and then nobody can get insurance and everyone's on the fair plan, and we all know how that goes. And then at the same time, you have these insurers, to your point, who are not necessary we're under investigation, i should say, for not paying out claims appropriately in the wake of the fires, and
they're also at the same time getting these rate increases. Well, those are two separate regulations, and you can't consider whether or not they're paying out properly or at least according to the way the law's currently written, while you're considering whether or not they can get a rate increase. They're
a very specific criteria determining that rate increase. I don't think the vast majority of these candidates understand that nuance coming into the threes, but I have heard I will tell you from some of the folks in the insurance industry that there are a couple of candidates who call them and said, sit down with me. I want to
hear everything, I want to understand everything. And so people are now trying to I can do their homework and learn these issues, and you know, John, I get you know to In their defense, also, a lot of these interviews that we did were early on. They were still learning the issues. So I am hopeful that by now they are more well versed.
And it's also an issue I think that relates directly to the failure of California government, because it's not just
homeowner's insurance that we're talking about here. We do a lot of crime stories here, and whenever, for example, a jewelry store gets hit, one of the aspects of that story that inevitably comes up is they are uninsured because they can't buy insurance because the jewelry stores get hit so often that no insurance company is willing to sell them a policy, and if they are, it's so expensive
that the small business can't afford to buy it. And it's like, Okay, this is where the state not being tough enough on crime is directly jeopardizing an entire industry in the state where I don't even know how these people survive. I mean, how do you own a business that you can't buy an insurance policy on when you know it's likely that you're going to get robbed at some point in the future. But that's just the reality for that industry right now. And oh boy, are they suffering because of it.
Yeah, that's terrifying. And you know, additionally, if.
I have time, I'm going allude to this in one of my questions.
Right now, school districts insurance are going up to the point where they're laying off teachers just to be able to afford insurance. It's partially because they're seeing an influx in litigation due to old lawsuits. But as insurance is increasing, these education pools are all in the same insurance pools. So it may be that somebody else has a claim, but your school district now has an insurance premium increase, and so now your school district has to let go of three teachers.
It is.
You're right. I think insurance is one of we can do a whole debate unjust insurance. Really there's so many nuanced issues.
Oh yeah, I mean it relates to everything, Like we said, crime, fires, the high cost of living. There are very few subjects that the insurance crisis doesn't touch here in the state of California right now.
That's so true, although I think you probably didn't say for.
Gas, right that's very tent too.
That's everything requires jaff or how the ripple effects off the gap.
Well, the debate is going to be a big one. It's tomorrow night in Claremont, and I believe there's another debate or maybe even two more coming up next week. So right now they're sharpening their skills and hoping to put their best foot forward. And I can't remember a gubernatorial election in the state of California where this late in the game we really didn't know what was going to happen. This is the first truly contested truly, I
don't know. It could go to maybe four or five different candidates, and I can't remember the last time that that was that was in play.
You know, it makes it so exciting. And these guys, listen, they all have dirt on each other two and so I'm just sitting here at my popcorn waiting to see what next. Much of the next scandal is going to drop, and you know, we just we just never know what's going to happen next. It's the reason that CBS from the beginning has always really wanted to have the most inclusive debate and things back to the usc ADC debate.
They there are people now. Javier Baveras is pulling, you know, is near right now, and he wouldn't even been included in that debate. So I really think that goes to show that anything can happen. And you know, we are the very last debate before ballots dropped, so we're hopeful that you know, everybody watches our debate. I like to think that we're the biggest debate and we'll have you guys.
In the crowds.
Of course, it's going to be fun. But yeah, I really think tomorrow night is going to be consequential. I think it's going to be a turning point in this race, and I would not be surprised if the field changes after tomorrow night.
Oh yeah.
Well, Michael Trachio, who is the Via Regosa affiliated strategist who tweeted out that Eric Swalwell was going to have problems with aids and with interns, has tweeted out that there are more Katie Porter videos that will drop before the ballots go out. So maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong.
I don't know.
He was right on the last one and he put it out on x for the world to see with this problem tweeted.
About concluded about a few different candidates. So I'm just sitting here. Wait. You know, we hear a lot. Hear a lot of rumors, right that we never report. We just kind of have to wait till they're verified. So you and I'll be finding out the same time as any of these rumors end up being true.
That is very true.
Julie Watts, who's going to be hosting tomorrow's debate, which is going to be aired statewide here in the state of California, CBS locally in Los Angeles, kpi X in San Francisco, KOVR in Sacramento, KKEL I guess is also going to be airing it as well, so make sure you tune in tomorrow at five thirty, Julie'll be asking the questions to all the candidates who are running for governor here in California. Julie, thanks so much for stopping by.
Thank you so much. John Oh And it's streaming nationally on CBS and twenty four seven.
All right, Julie Watts, you can follow her on Twitter at Julie Watts TV.
Thanks so much.
Eight hundred two two two five two two two is a telephone number, one eight hundred two five to two two.
All right.
Let's go back to Javier bach Rhea and Ashley Zavala and find out what he had to say about Dana Williamson, who was his top aid, who was allegedly Gavin's top aide, and his top aid stole his money.
That's right, allegedly speaking.
Of following the law, I mean you were a victim of a crime that really, I mean shook Sacramento this past late late last fall. A couple of people who are close to you are now facing prison time for it, for stealing nearly a quarter of a million dollars in your campaign funds. I just I know you've said it was a gut punch to see that. Dana Williamson, who's a well known political consultant. Your former chief of staff had this scheme essentially to funnel money from your campaign
account to this longtime chief of staff of yours. I mean, I just want to confirm on the record here.
Had funneled money. I think she was funneling beer. Oh yeah, she was funneling lots of liquids.
To this longtime chief of staff of yours. I mean, I just want to confirm on the record here, like you were really truly misled there.
Yeah.
As I said, gut punch, you put your trust in people. But what you also have to remember is as much as you've had a working relationship over years, as much as you've done things together and succeeded in so many ways, at the end of the day, we're all accountable.
What is it with being Attorney General of California that makes you so wed to the cliches?
Bob Bonta?
The law is the law, and no one is above the law. And so when accountability comes knocking your way.
Boy, he's saying it so many times now, he's getting tongue tied.
You got to show up. And so I don't think anyone will challenge what the law is, and we all have to face up to it. But it was a real gut punch.
This scheme, I mean involved taking ten thousand dollars a month up to from this dormant state campaign account of yours, and I just I mean looking through your congressional campaigns, I mean dating back to the nineties, like never once did you pay that amount for this kind of maintenance for legal services for nothing? I mean, like, did you really.
I want this guy looking at our budget? Keep in mind how many hospice care facilities were in one building in the San Fernando Valley seventy eight. How many billions of dollars were stolen from us in EDD fraud thirty how many millions of dollars billions of dollars have been stolen from us in the phony Bologney homeless services organizations
at least twenty five billion. And this guy can't keep an eye on one bank account that belongs to him, and he wants to be in charge of protecting California's budget, Like did you really not?
That wasn't that didn't raise any flags for you that those payments.
So we were paying for management of a dormant account, making sure that nothing was no laws were violated. Because I was Secretary of Health and Human Service as a cabinet member.
He has name dropped that job so many times. How much could it cost to maintain a dormant account? What do you have to do? Maybe fill out forms once a year, that's it.
I had to distance myself from anything that looked political or campaign related. I had ethics rules that were in place that required me to distance myself, and so I depended on people that I trusted to be able to manage that the right way.
We were they managed it in Mexico. Oh yes, with very expensive handbags.
We were going to pay for the management. You always pay for someone to oversee to file the right documents in the rest, and I was willing to pay the price to make sure that I didn't have to worry about it. Lo and behold, I.
Paid the most and I got nothing for it.
Finally got dragged into a scandal while I.
Was willing to pay a price. And by the way, the attorneys of the campaign account signed off on all those payments as well. Wasn't as if there wasn't someone who was checking. The attorneys were checking and they were, so.
They're probably crooked too.
How many crooked people did this guy have on staff? Well, Sacramento was full of crooked consultants and crooked strategists and crooked attorneys.
Yes, and they were saying, you know, everything seemed kosher. What happened was after the payments, the way the money was used is where the violation occurred. There was no violation in terms of the payment. That's why I and my campaign were not implicated in the actual activities.
I mean the people involved. I mean a really well known lobbyist and consultant. I mean two of them, Dana Williamson, and one is escaping me right now.
That was his chief of staff, wasn't it. And there was another lobbyist too, But.
I mean they just these are powerful people in Sacramento. I mean, like, just not to speak for you, but it sounds like you were swindled or.
Yep.
This might go down as a worse interview for him than the Alex interview, the scrubb At interview. I think this one makes him look even dumber. And he looked pretty dumb on that debate stage too.
But when you do the scrub